Rand Paul

Rand Paul Calls Out MSNBC for Being Dishonest

|

fuckits body language
MSNBC

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was on MSNBC earlier today along with Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) to talk about their joint effort to reform prison sentencing guidelines. Because it's MSNBC eventually the host segued into Paul's comments on The Rachel Maddow Show in 2010, when he explained that while he supported the bulk of the 1964 Civil Rights Act he had some philosophical issues with government telling private businesses  who they could and couldn't bar from their private property. It was among his first media appearances after winning his primary election that year, and led to a firestorm of left-wing-generated criticism. Politicians, after all, shouldn't expect to have honest conversations , especially on partisan outlets.

Paul's learned his lesson. Here was his response to the MSNBC anchor today, via Mediaite:

People need to get over themselves writing all this stuff that I've changed my mind on the Civil Rights Act. Have I ever had a philosophical discussion about all aspects of it? Yeah, and I learned my lesson: To come on MSNBC and have a philosophical discussion, the liberals will come out of the woodwork and go crazy and say you're against the Civil Rights Act, and you're some terrible racist. And I take great objection to that, because, in Congress, I think there is nobody else trying harder to get people back their voting rights, to get people back and make the criminal justice system fair. So I take great offense to people who want to portray me as something that I'm not.

His response shows a healthy dose of combativeness that suggests Paul is readier than he's ever been to mount a national campaign.

Watch Reason TV's latest Rand Paul interview below:

NEXT: Tea Party Faltering in Michigan Congressional Primary

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I like this.

  2. Good.

  3. Man, it is nice to see someone take a swipe at the mendacious fucks in the media. And to do it eloquently (articulately?) and with some teeth.

    1. (articulately?)

      and clean.

    2. Ya. Good for him.

    3. Shitlibs like MSNBC hosts have become so accustomed to their ideological opponents scraping, apologizing, and qualifying themselves when “j’accuse!” is thrown at them. They’re not used to someone throwing that contempt right back in their face and saying “fuck off.” They can’t handle dealing with someone who isn’t as mendacious as they are and has buckets of self-confidence.

      Rand had the perfect response. Never apologized, never explained, and treated the MSNBC host like dogshit for even bringing it up.

      1. You know, I wish that Ron Paul had said “FUCK YOU” even once to any of the leftards who kept trying to trip him up.

        -jcr

  4. mount a national campaign.

    I am not so sure I want him to stop being a senator.

    1. As the chief executive, can’t he fire and not replace nearly all government agency employees vie legitimate executive order? Congress can still mandate the agencies, and fund them, but at least they’d stop doing damage for at least 4 years.

      I know, but I can dream.

      1. Not really….

        The civil service act, in making it more difficult for presidents to hand out jobs to incompetent cronies, has had the effect of also making the civil service largely immune to mass firings by presidents for misconduct.

        Thus a putative libertarian president would find himself having to give orders to a bureaucracy manned by people who want to keep doing the nasty things he is ordering them to stop doing. And I think the civil service would win the PR fight with any president trying to reign them in.

        At this point, unless the American people undergo a dramatic change in their attitudes as to what they want from the nation state, the system is pretty much doomed to do a full throttle flight into a mountainside.

        1. Yeah, the only thing a libertarian-minded president could do to reduce the power of govt agencies is to eliminate those agencies. At this point, most of them are simply justifying their existence rather than executing their mission anyway.

        2. If I’m correct, the directors of most of the big agencies “sit at the pleasure of the president”.

      2. As I’ve said before, any President who attempts to rein in the Apparatus is going to get a JFK crew cut.

        1. The Opposition in Residence has plenty of means to stall a Government’s efforts without resorting to a JFK crew cut.

          They can say it’s too soon after an election.

          They can say the idea is good but is this the proper implementation?

          They can say the idea is good, but is it a good time?

          They can say that the idea has run into technical, legal, logistical, or other roadblocks.

          That should be enough until it is almost time for an election, in which case you have to wait until after the election is over.

  5. Maybe I’ve being naive here, but Rand Paul is one of the few politicians that doesn’t strike me as an egomaniacal and corrupt fraud.

    1. All politicians are egomaniacs and corrupt frauds. He is just less so.

      1. And definitely as egomaniacal as any. Just maybe less of a corrupt fraud.

      2. The one key aspect I get from Rand is that he seems to have a greater interest and grasp of the philosophical underpinnings of policy than any other major national pol and he comes across as incredibly sincere as compared to his collegues on the national stage.

  6. Even if he doesn’t get the nomination, he’s going to do a lot to expose these statists. MSNBC and their ilk would ignore him if they were smart, but they’re not.

    They can go the RACISSSTSS!!1! route all they like, but Paul is a good enough speaker to course correct the conversation and go left of the supposed “progressives” on a number of issues. It will open up some of (not many) the leftist’s eyes. Those who can’t be swayed, the team players, will get so pissed that they’ll go ballistic and say some seriously off-putting and inflammatory shit. I personally can’t wait for the melt downs Paul will cause.

    1. left of the supposed “progressives” on a number of issues.

      Supporting freedom isn’t going left.

      -jcr

  7. That answer and that body language is pretty great. All I would add is a silent jack-off motion to drive the point home.

  8. Didn’t his father, Ron Paul, have a news letter calling MLK day (Get back at Whitie day)?

    I know lots of people of color who retreted from Ron Paul when he denied having anything to do with the “Ron Paul” report. He claimed that he never edited the article.

    We all know that is nonsense.

    Rand is Ron’s son who grew up in same houshold.

    Truth is, I guess it doesn’t matter that he is a racist…at least to white people.

    1. Soooo….Guilt-By-Association? You’re OK with that?

      1. It would had been had he not mentioned his position on the civil rights act.

        I don’t know what the big hoopla is. I think the Libertarian position on the civil rights act is clear: Since market forces didn’t anact it, it is government intervention…which libertarians are against.

        1. I don’t know what the big hoopla is.

          That’s a shame, seeing you threw down the racism charge.

          And, my question to you was whether or not you’re OK with guilt-by-association.

        2. Unnecessary parentheses. Retreted. Houshold. Anact. “It would had been had ….” These attacks on the English language speak for themselves.

          That said, civil rights are those rights that we have as members of a civil society. If we have elections, then as adult members of civil society, we are allowed to vote. This logically follows from the premise that people should be treated equally under the law.

          The right to eat at a restaurant where the owner hates you does not necessarily follow from such principles. Failing to believe in whatever imaginary rights the political left decides to invent does not mean that one is a racist.

          1. But But But….The Government Did it

        3. He said he had philosophical reservations about one part of the law, he never condemned the act as a whole

          1. The phrase ” philosophical reservations against telling private businesses and landlords who to hire or rent/sell to’ is a politically correct way of saying ‘I’m against it the Civil Rights Act.’

            Telling Private Businesses/Landlords that they have to cater to black people is the spirit of the Civil Rights Law.

            It’s like saying “I’m for the death penalty except I have philosophical reservations in the defendant being killed.”

            1. CRA doesn’t empower the AG to go after States enacting Jim Crow laws? Didn’t apply to segregated schools and school districts?

              1. You can get rid of Jim Crow laws and still have the “Colored Waiting Room” in private businesses. And, if an uppity Black person sits there, you can always charge them with trespassing. Who needs Jim Crow.

                And, as for schools, Libertarians are against Public Schools. They would had closed them for a Free Market Private School System financed by vouchers. This would had definitely fixed the segregated schools.

                1. And, you’d be forced (at gunpoint, no doubt) to do business with these entities?

                  You do understand that, if a company/corporation/business/what-have-you does things you don’t like, and this would include having racist policies, you wouldn’t have to give them your money, don’t you?

                  Or, is it just plain ol’ having to have control over that which vexes you?

                  1. How many businesses in the South went out of business for having a “White’s Only” sign?

                    1. IIRC, in the interview with Maddow Rand essentially conceded the point that at the time such a proactive and corrective step may have indeed been necessary, but that we’ve as a people evolved and integrated to such an extent that if the local IHOP refuses to serve a class of people on the basis of race, they’ll be the targets of considerable boycotts and suffer financially for such actions.

                      All one needs to do is look at the fallout Chik Fil-A and Mozilla took from their positions on gay marriage (an issue that is far more presently divisive than support for equal treatment of blacks is) .

                    2. I think George Zimmerman received more DONATIONS from racists and the fact that he killed a little black kid than the fact that he is a gun owner.

                      That said, I think there’s a BIG MARKET in America for the White-Only Restaurant.

                    3. He killed a 17-year old black adolescent, one who was beating the ever-loving shit out of his pudgy ass.

                      By the way, 17-year old black adolescent is a fairly concerning demographic where violent crime is concerned, with the 17-19 y/o demographic comprising just over 10% of homocides committed in 2011.

                      Was Zimmerman an overzealous cop wannabe? Absolutely. But methinks much of the support he received was due to the perception that he was being railroaded as a racist and the media force-feeding a narrative of a harmless little kid (going so far as to show only images of Martin as a 13 y/o and thoroughly sanitizing his image).

                    4. Let’s not get into the George Thing.

                      The only reason I brought it up is because many americans that supported Him feel that killing black teenagers does everyone a favor.

                      And that may be factual. If you were to put all Blacks in a concentration camp, your crime rate would go down SIGNIFICANTLY.

                    5. The only reason I brought it up is because many americans that supported Him feel that killing black teenagers does everyone a favor.

                      No, you merely assume that someone who has a fundamental belief in the right to self defense when you’re getting the ever-loving shit beaten out of you (an assertion that all objective facts attest to) is somehow using that as cover for some deep-seated crimethink. The demons in your head are exactly that, in your head.

                      If you were to put all Blacks in a concentration camp, your crime rate would go down SIGNIFICANTLY.

                      Again, no. Because even if you eliminated the 60% of murders committed by black perps, you would be adding the far more criminal act of genocide of 55 million blacks.

                      And just to be clear, racism isn’t a blindness to statistical trends or population propensities. It is the error of attributing a statistical trend to an individual member of a population.

                    6. America has done it before with a problem population.

                    7. Yes, progressive hero FDR at that.

                    8. Didn’t realize FDR murdered all of the Indians.

                    9. Sudden was referring to the internment of the Japanese during WWII.

                    10. “Let’s not get into the George Thing.”

                      Says the asshole who brought it up in the first place.

                    11. How many businesses in the South went out of business for having a “White’s Only” sign?

                      If you spent any amount of time in the South recently, you’d see most of the segregation is largely self-imposed by both sides. Let’s not forget that the largest black populations are still concentrated in the Deep South, despite the supposed fact that it’s the worse place to be for them politically and socially.

                      Maybe southern blacks hate northeastern whites as much as you hate southern rednecks.

            2. You realize that he was referring to one of like ten sections of the CRA (I’m too lazy to look up the exact number)? Not the entire act? Plus what Sudden said about the context of the time. I have philosophical reservations about that part of the CRA, but overall, I think the law did much more good than harm and passing it was the correct decision. I also think that at this point in time, we could repeal that section without widespread denial of service on the basis of race. Sure, there’d be the occasional Bubba’s Diner that refuses to serve black people, but anyone who thinks it would be a problem even remotely on the magnitude of the Jim Crow era (and keep in mind that at that time, state laws in the South required discrimination) is delusional. Businesses that have leaders with somewhat anti-gay views face intense public pressure today, I can’t imagine what the public response would be to a company that openly refused service on the basis of race. I’m not saying racism doesn’t exist anymore, it clearly does, but it is not so pervasive at this time that you would see a society even remotely resembling the Jim Crow South anywhere in the USA in the absence of that one section of the CRA.

        4. Since market forces didn’t anact it, it is government intervention…which libertarians are against.

          Alice, you ignorant slut.

          The most significant part of the civl rights act was unwinding the Jim Crow laws. Not sure why you didn’t know that. Maybe because you went to a government school.

          -jcr

    2. Wasn’t there some professor somewhere who taught the President and hung out with him and stuff? Or was it some minister from Chicago?

    3. If every person who has/had a racist parent was also racist, then racism would never decrease.

      1. Me, along with many other progressives, can care less that a politician says something that may be seen as racists.

        Black police officers profile black kids ALL OF THE TIME. Is the Black Police Officer Racist against black people? No, it is another example of ‘Racism without the Racist’.

        Plus, this is America, and White people have the right to be racist after the after the atrocities committed against them with the Government Intervening with this Civil Rights Law.

        ‘EVERY SEAT GIVEN TO A BLACK KID IN COLLEGE was ROBBED from a white kid.’

        1. Sorry, but that’s BS. Ron Paul was branded a racist and yet nothing in his public record as a politician or in his conduct in the private sector would back up that position – in fact quite the opposite.

          1. Colored people give white people the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT until they do or say something which merits the DOUBT of the BENEFIT.

            But as I mentioned earlier, just because someone supports a racist policy or says racists things doesn’t necessarily make them a racist.

            And your point that Ron Pauls Public Records shows this is proof.

            1. Alice, you’re a fucking lying asshole. Get lost.

        2. What. The. Fuck.

          Did the transition to the ACA ruin your access to your presciption meds? This is some grade F troll drivel, Alice.

          And I say that as someone who usually finds you, while certainly a contrarian voice on this site, one that is willing to engage a topic in good faith.

          1. That last phrase about black kids stealing white kids seats in college is a DIRECT QUOTE.

            1. A direct quote, from the Ron Paul Newsletter published in the 1980’s, with no affiliation with Rand whatsoever. (we’ll even assume, for argument’s sake that Ron did in fact edit and editorially support this view).

              Rand is not his father in the same way I am not my father. Has my dad influenced the way I think on some issues? Without question. Are there other issues that my father and I have a wildly divergent opinions on to the point of vehement arguments? Why yes, a great deal of them.

              Instead of focusing on a 30 year old newsletter published under his father’s masthead, perhaps look at what Rand is actually doing legislatively that would produce greatly disproportionate benefits to the black community, and at what would amount to an electoral penalty to Rand and the greater GOP. Actions speak louder than words. For all the Left’s bluster about racism, they’ve shown precious little initiative in actually re-enfranchising people who’ve served their time.

              1. I’m sorry. This was taken the wrong way.

                This is NOT A DIRECT QUOTE FROM either Ron or Rand Paul. This was a quote from a yahoo arguing against affirmative action.

                MY BAD.

              2. You know how Liberals have good intentions and their policies don’t go as planned?

                I feel the same about many Libertarian initiatives.

                We (Liberals and Libertarians) many times make the same mistake: We trust that people will act in good faith. People, in general, are callous assholes.

          2. Did she just invoke “colored people”?

            She’s almost as funny as anon-bot. Wow.

            1. White people do the same thing with blacks.

              Many whites give Colored people the Benefit of the Doubt until they earn the Doubt of the Benefit.

              1. Sorry, does not compute.

            2. “she” is a fucking lying asshole.

    4. It’s nonsense that a politician and practicing doctor didn’t edit “his” newspaper?

      It was a ridiculous mistake by Paul, and he should take full responsibility for it. It’d also be great if he could name names. But c’mon. Especially your loathsome, “Well, Rand is his son, so he must be just as racist!” logic.

      1. Your r right Mr. Green, it’s just an honest mistake. I was wrong.

    5. There is no substantial person on the national stage doing more to correct the injustices inherent in the system that Rand Paul and yet various imbeciles who supposedly support a more just society still insist attempting to discrediting him. What that tells me is that certain people have an agenda that has nothing at all with actually creating a just and humane society.

    6. Wow I knew you were a silly progressive, but I didn’t realize you were a horrible fucking racist too.

      Too bad really, I used to think you were better than Tony.

  9. Was he smarter to go with the, “And I take great objection to that”, than something a little more harsh? Something along the lines of, “that’s a bunch of horse shit.”?

  10. I think that comment thread gave me cancer.

    1. Alice Bowie, like Tony, speaks far too much self-parody to be a real person. At least, that’s the conclusion I have come to lately.

      1. Tony and I are incarnations of the same LIBERAL god known only to a few as PROGRESSO.

        1. Alice, you’re a fucking lying asshole.
          Get lost.

    2. Don’t you go dyin’ on us, now.

  11. I’m not sure I want a president who doesn’t understand the definition of plagiarism.

    1. Tony|7.30.14 @ 10:20PM|#
      “I’m not sure I want a president who doesn’t understand the definition of plagiarism.”

      Shitstain, even if you weren’t lying, it would be far better than one whose concept of reality is as warped as yours. And, like you, can never make a statement that isn’t a lie.
      What an asshole.

      1. So Rand Paul (or his speechwriters) didn’t plagiarize? And Rand Paul didn’t defend himself by completely misconstruing the definition of plagiarism?

    2. But you sure will vote for a person who lies about her heritage to take an affirmative action spot in the faculty of an Ivy League.

      1. Is there anything you believe about the universe that is factual?

    3. Well, we’ve got a vice-president and a Montana senator who didn’t understand it–why does the office of the president have to be exempt?

    4. You’re cool with a Vice President who plagiarized though, right?

      1. I’m not voting for him.

  12. And who plagiarizes.

  13. I don’t get this Rand Paul worship from Reason.

    My understanding is, he made comments about not liking certain parts of the CRA, and even if he’s right, those opinions are likely to scare some people. So naturally, some people in the media want clarification.

    And then Rand Paul gets mad and says, damn you for wanting clarification. I’m just going to throw up smoke so no one can tell exactly what I think about the CRA.

    If he thinks that government should not prohibit business owners from discriminating on the basis of race (in some cases), shouldn’t he be honest and say so, and stick with it?

  14. Don’t we ask for politicians to rise above empty sound bites and political posturing?… He repeatedly said he would vote for the act but that if he were around at its drafting, would have pushed to modify language. It was an intellectual argument about the limits of government on private ownership… Not an endorsement of discrimination… It was analagous to arguing the rights of certain Christian groups to protest soldiers funerals. You abhor the practice but worry about an erosion of fundamental rights… In Paul’s case, he looks for truths in issues, and sometimes truths are not black and white… Our knee jerk reactions can sometimes miss larger, more complicated issues… The fact that he has the courage to enter intellectual minefields should be recognized… She took the lower road and drove the issue back into the sound bite machine… Helping keep political discussions stale and superficial…. She’s a political hack at best…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.